8 ms·
Diversity, I think, is really important. Diversity of thought as well as all the other kinds of diversity. It's important to be able to work with people who
by lsc 11y ago
Diversity, I think, is really important. Diversity of thought as well as all the other kinds of diversity. It's important to be able to work with people who come from different backgrounds, who have different beliefs. I see this on both sides (I see it more often on the left, but that's just because my filter bubble is a somewhat leftish one.. when I step out of that bubble, I see plenty examples of people on the right doing the same thing.) and it's... pretty terrible, I think, and especially on the left extremely hypocritical.
- coldpie 11y agoIt's perfectly consistent. Enforcing one's religious views through threats of violence[1] is not the kind of diversity that the left wants. [1] This is what it means to pass and enforce a law.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- coldpie 11y agoWhat? Did you miss the "enforcing one's religious views [onto others]" bit?
- oldmanjay 11y agoThe left is perfectly happy to enforce their views using the same mechanism. Absent a claim that there is a scientific basis for the institutionalized racism of affirmative action, for instance, it seems no less religious. Being the "correct" opinion isn't a saving grace here. This isn't my attempt to scuttle affirmative action, by the way. If you believe it is, you've missed my point
- oldmanjay 11y agoTo any downvoters, please feel free to explain what you find objectionable. Is it the dissonance caused by the realization that the political left is willing to use techniques you find angering when they don't support your views?
- jowiar 11y agoThere are a whole lot of issues I'm willing to accept "diversity of thought" on. But there's a line one crosses when they go from "I believe homosexuality is wrong, and therefore I will suppress any gay feelings I may have" to "I believe homosexuality is wrong, and thus I will attempt to make you into a second class citizen". I don't have beef with Eich over his thoughts. But his actions were inhumane, and he hasn't acknowledged or apologized for that.
- csense 11y agoYeah. If the only way you can get people to (pretend to) believe an idea (such as "gay marriage is a good thing") is by threatening their livelihood if they don't, it reflects poorly on both you and the idea.
- coldpie 11y agoBut it's perfectly OK to impose your religious views on others through threat of violence?
- jowiar 11y agoWhat Eich believes is irrelevant. But he didn't just "believe something". He did something. Beliefs don't have consequences, but it's absolutely reasonable and possibly necessary to attempt to enforce consequences for actions.
- kafkaesq 11y agoWell that's a non-sequitur, to start with. As in, the position you're attacking (the idea of sanctioning him to get him to change his beliefs) wasn't what the anti-Eich crowd was advocating, by and large. But at this stage, it's better to just give the topic a rest, please. Pretty much everything that could be said about it has been, by now. And baiting (or simply poorly reasoned) dialog (such as your statement above) simply adds to his lumps.
- jonahx 11y agoI hear this argument a lot, and since you seem sincere in making it I have a serious question. I'd honestly like to hear the answer from you or anyone who agrees with your sentiment. Is it also important to be accepting of those who think black people should never marry white people? What about those who think black people shouldn't have the right reproduce? Or live in the same neighborhoods as white people? Or live? How about when they start taking action to make their views reality? Is there a line where you stop being accepting of "diverse" views and instead oppose them to stand up for the people those views oppress? If so, where is the line? If not, why do you prioritize someone's "right" to oppress others because of their beliefs over the rights of the victims?
- lsc 11y agoLet's use an example I face every day. I work in an industry that by in large doesn't hire women or black people. So yes, I'm around people who are very racist and very sexist every day - It's pretty fucking important for me to be able to function socially around people who have political views I consider to be abhorrent - people who act on those beliefs every day. Would a better course of action be for me to leave the industry? because that's what it would mean to cut all the racists out of my life.
- jonahx 11y agoThanks for answering. The point you're bringing up -- the value of being able to function in a world among people with a wide variety of beliefs that conflict with yours when you have no choice and not much power to effect change -- is totally valid. I thought you were extrapolating from that to argue that we shouldn't take action when we can. In the case of Eich, the power happened to be social pressure, and it was used to oust him. I'm not crazy about the tactics, and such tactics can be abused, but the result in this case is that it's now known that at Mozilla, at least, homophobia isn't tolerated. I thought you were arguing against that result on the grounds that people should have had more "tolerance for diversity of thought," namely the thought that gay people shoudn't have full marriage equality, with a political action to support it. My entire response was based on that premise. If it was a misreading of your intent, I apologize.
- hackuser 11y agoIt's not true that all diversity of thought is good or acceptable. As obvious examples, the idea that people with black skin should be slaves, or that people who believe in Judaism should be rounded up and exterminated. Saying that gay people should be denied the right to marry is not much different in my mind than advocating segregation for blacks, or denying Muslims various rights. (However, as long as Eich is no longer promoting that view, I think it's long past time for everyone else to move on. I hope my personal mistakes aren't remembered and rehashed industry-wide like that!) So where to draw the line? A simple mnemonic I use: The only thing I don't tolerate is intolerance. It's a little trite, but it works and there is another good reason for it: The intolerent are parasites on the social contract of tolerance; they violate it and then claim they should have its protection.
- DonHopkins 11y agoYou're in good company in your well thought out justification of not tolerating intolerance. Religious groups who themselves benefit from tolerance yet preach intolerance don't need to change their bigoted beliefs -- they are free believe anything they want, right or wrong. They only need to behave as if they were tolerant (by not actively trying to strip away the existing rights of others, like Brendan did), to get along in a tolerant society that has the right self preservation and the right to defend itself from those who would destroy its tolerance and institutions of liberty (like gay marriage). Paradox of Tolerance [1]: Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1. "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." In a 1997 work, Michael Walzer asked "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance